Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Debasish Das vs Urmila Mitra & Anr on 14 January, 2020
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
1 14.01.2020 Court No. 19 Item 28 CP C.O. 4257 of 2019 Debasish Das vs. Urmila Mitra & anr.
Ms. Soumi Kundu.
.....for the petitioner.
The defendant no. 2 in Title Suit No. 55 of 2013, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Burdwan, being a suit for eviction upon revocation of a licence has preferred this revisional application being aggrieved by an order dated August 21, 2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Burdwan. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated August 21, 2019 by which his application for stay of the proceedings of the suit until disposal of the Second Appeal being SAT 47 of 2018 pending before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta, has been rejected.
It appears that on the basis of a Deed No. 2787 of 2006 which has been described under Kha schedule property of the plaint, a Title Suit was instituted being Title Suit No. 175 of 2005 by the defendant no. 1, since deceased. The said suit was dismissed. Thereafter an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court at Burdwan being Title Appeal No. 16 of 2016. The judgment and decree of the learned trial court passed in Title Suit No. 175 of 2005 was upheld by the lower appellate court. 2
Thereafter, a second appeal was preferred by the petitioner before this Court which has been registered as SAT 47 of 2018 which is still pending. The said second appeal admittedly has not yet been admitted under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the same has been pending since 2018. The petitioner has also not been able to produce any document to show that the steps had been taken for enlisting the same for hearing by this Court under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Thus the prayer of the petitioner that the Title Suit No. 55 of 2013 which was at the stage of evidence should be stayed till the disposal of the second appeal when, in fact, there is no second appeal in the eye of law, cannot be allowed. The same having not been admitted under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned court below rightly rejected the application for stay.
The order impugned does not call for any interference. However, if the petitioner is able to produce any document with regard to admission of the second appeal arising out of Title Suit No. 175 of 2005 within a month from date before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Burdwan, the same may be taken note of, if filed by the petitioner. However the question as to whether the suit should continue after admission of the second appeal will be absolutely within the domain of the learned court to decide.
The revisional application is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
3Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible subject to compliance of all usual formalities.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)